Last year was really the exception to the rule for Manning. Without last year's postseason, he's 3-7 in every other postseason. Its really hard to have a record under .500 for the postseason considering you can't lose more than once in any given season, but have the opportunity to win as many as 4in any given season.

Click to expand...

Look at it this way though...

For every post season game (or any other game for that matter) there's one winner and one loser. So for each post-season, the aggregate won-loss record for all the teams involved is exactly .500. So for a team that goes to a lot of post-seasons (like Indy) you'd expect that their won-loss record would be around .500 (within some margin of error). And so, Manning's record is just about where you'd expect it to be (at 7-7)

The flip side to that reasoning of course is that it shows how remarkable Brady's 13-2 record is.

Last year was really the exception to the rule for Manning. Without last year's postseason, he's 3-7 in every other postseason. Its really hard to have a record under .500 for the postseason considering you can't lose more than once in any given season, but have the opportunity to win as many as 4in any given season.

I don't need stats to tell me who's better, I can look at these guys on the sidelines and tell who is FAR superior. Manning couldn't inspire a gnat to pile of dog****. Last year's AFC title game was a fluke, the exception to the rule. Brady will always be above Manning, and in a few weeks all the debates end.